Dissemination and Implementation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression in the Kaiser Permanente Health Care System: Evaluation of Initial Training and Clinical Outcomes
Abstract
Notwithstanding its empirical status and strong recommendation in clinical practice guidelines, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) continues to be delivered infrequently and with low fidelity on the clinical front lines. Recently, organized efforts and policies within the public sector to disseminate and implement CBT and other evidence-based psychotherapies have yielded encouraging results and provided optimism for bridging the research-to-practice-gap. Following from these efforts, the current article examines the initial impact and experience of the implementation of an individualized approach to CBT training and treatment within the Kaiser Permanente health care system. Initial training outcomes, including changes in general and specific competencies, were assessed using divergent assessment methods within the initial cohort of therapists undergoing training. Initial patient outcomes, including changes in depression and anxiety, were assessed among patients receiving treatment from therapists in training. Results revealed training in and implementation of CBT-D was associated with overall large improvements in therapist competencies and in clinically significant improvements in both depression and anxiety among patients. Findings from the initial phase of dissemination and implementation within a large private system provide support for, and extend recent findings related to, the feasibility and effectiveness of training in and implementation of CBT-D in a real-world context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Approximately 87% (29,012/33,492) of clients achieved clinical improvement over a median of 6 live synchronous sessions, compared with 22%-67% improvement rates over 8-15 sessions (or even longer) in traditional mental health care settings.
“Approximately 87% (29,012/33,492) of clients achieved clinical improvement (ie, reliable improvement or recovery) over a median of 6 live synchronous sessions, compared with 22%-67% improvement rates over 8-15 sessions (or even longer) in traditional mental health care settings [19,39-41].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Karlin, B. E., Brown, G. K., Jager-Hyman, S., Green, K. L., Wong, M., Lee, D. S., Bertagnolli, A., & Ross, T. B.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- Corresponding author
- Karlin, Bradley E.
- Venue
- Behavior Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 446-458
- ISSN
- 0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2886655526
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 1.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Kaiser Permanente
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- dissemination and implementation, therapist training, therapist competence, depression, anxiety, Kaiser Permanente, evidence-based psychotherapy, research-practice gap
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Delivery of Health Care, Depression, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review